In fact, Zuckerberg and Milner announced the new prize at an exclusive, star-studded gala to announce the winners of the other two prizes: the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics and the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences.

The point is that "scientists should be celebrated as heroes," said Anne Wojcicki and Sergey Brin in a press release. The event will even air on television, on the Science Channel at 9 p.m., January 27.

But not everyone thinks these prizes are a good idea. Peter Woit, a physics and math professor at Columbia University, speaks out against them on his blog Not Even Wrong. Woit says that this prize often goes to people working in the same narrow field of physics. He also notes that all seven winners on Friday were men.

He sees a lot of flaws with the new math prize:

I've written extensively about the "Fundamental Physics Prize" and what I see as the worst problem with it (heavily rewarding and propping up a failed research program).

... Based on the other prizes, it seems likely that the winners will be mostly prominent US academics, people already well-rewarded by the current academic star system.

... so the main argument for the prizes is that the money (and Academy Awards-style ceremonies) will help make them celebrities, and that this is a good thing.

... the whole concept is problematic. The US today is increasingly dominated by a grotesque winner-take-all culture that values wealth and celebrity above all else

... I don't see any reason to believe this is going to lead to better mathematics.

Woit is famous for outspoken opinions. His 2006 book "Not Even Wrong" documented the flaws in "String Theory," which tries to explain how everything in the world is inter-related. It was an extremely popular physics theory when his book was published.